.jpg) Rafael Madrigal
Several witnesses identified 25-year-old Rafael Madrigal Jr. in a photo lineup as either the shooter or driver of the car involved. These witnesses testified against Madrigal at trial.
Madrigal had been at work at Proactive Packaging, a 50-minute drive away, at the time of the shooting. A co-worker could have confirmed his alibi, and his boss could have testified that he was certain Madrigal was at work because he was the only one who knew how to operate one of the machines in the production line.
However, Madrigal’s defense attorney, Andrew Marc Stein, called only Madrigal’s supervisor to the stand, who testified that he thought Madrigal was at work, but couldn’t be certain. In addition, Stein did not present a recording of Madrigal’s co-defendant admitting that Madrigal was not involved.
On January 18, 2002, a jury convicted Madrigal of attempted murder and he was sentenced to 53 years to life in prison.
In November 2007, the California Innocence Project filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition asserted that Madrigal had received an unfair trial because of an inadequate legal defense by Stein.
In July 2009, United States District Court Magistrate Judge Marc Goldman recommended that the writ be granted and that Madrigal's conviction be vacated. Magistrate Goldman noted that Stein had told the jury in his opening statement that he would Robert Howards, the plant manager of Proactive Packaging where Madrigal worked, to testify that Madrigal was at work at the time of the shooting, but never did call him as a witness. Magistrate Goldman noted that Stein also had promised to call Madrigal to deny involvement in the crime and to identify the gang member whom Madrigal believed actually shot Aguilera. And Stein had failed to do so. "In fact, Stein did not present evidence of third-party culpability at all," Magistrate Goldman said.
During a hearing on the petition, Stein testified that he remembered nothing of the case, except that Madrigal, at the last minute, refused to take the witness stand, fearing gang retaliation.
Madrigal had denied Stein's claim and said he was ready to testify.
Magistrate Goldman said that Madrigal's testimony was more credible than Stein's testimony. "[T]he Court finds that Stein’s “sudden” recollection as to why he did not put Petitioner on stand was not believable. While testifying at the evidentiary hearing, Stein was hostile and uncooperative. He repeatedly stated that he could not recall any of the events that occurred from the time he began representing [Madrigal] through his motion for new trial after [Madrigal's] conviction. That he suddenly had a clear recollection of this single event, when he could not recall anything else, strains credulity."
On September 3, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess approved the magistrate's findings and overturned Madrigal's conviction. Madrigal was freed on bail on October 6, 2009.
A retrial was scheduled for October 2010, but was postponed. On July 29, 2011, when the prosecution requested another continuance, the trial judge denied the motion and dismissed the charges.
Madrigal sought compensation, but in February 2014, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board denied the claim. Madrigal filed a lawsuit challenging the decision and in December 2016, the Second District California Court of Appeal ordered a new compensation hearing be held. However, the compensation board again denied Madrigal's claim.
Madrigal also filed a malpractice lawsuit against Stein. The case was settled and the terms were not disclosed.
- Stefanie Denzel
|